but that is not what the n.s.a. is doing under these programs or the programs in question. these programs are in place solely for the purpose of detecting communications between terrorists who are operating outside of our country but communicating with operatives potentially within the united states. the intelligence community does not have the time nor the inclination nor the authority to track your internet activity or pry into our private lives. and even if someone is suspected by the way of a phone call match with a foreign terrorist, and someone residing or living in america and suspected of having a link to terrorism, the government can go no further than the court to get an order to investigate any other information or material about you. and let's not forget why these programs are there in the first place.

following the tragic attacks on september 11, 2001, america realized it needed to greatly improve our intelligence efforts and our communications among our agencies. where we're face -- we were facing a different kind of war. this wasn't two states lining up against each other, this wasn't addressing wars of the past, this was a whole new way of attacking americans on our homeland. we needed to modernize our approach and we needed to connect the dots before a terrorist attack occurred again. at the level of 9/11 or others. in fact, had these programs been available to n.s.a. before that september day, i believe we could have identified some or all of the hijackers. when one of the september 11 hijackers called a contact in yemen from san diego, we could have identified him through this program. we could have prevented the terrorists from boarding those plains. a senator: will the senator

yield? mr. coats: crashing into a field in pennsylvania and killing thousands of americans. a senator: will the senator yield? the presiding officer: under the order morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations which the clerk will report. mr. coats: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent i have just two more minutes to wrap up this statement. the presiding officer: is there objection? hearing none. mr. coats: thank you, mr. president. what i've just explained is why these programs exist. they connect the dots and successfully thwarted dozens of terrorist attacks. they are some of the most effective tools available to protect our country from terrorist organizations like al qaeda. and that is why i find it so troubling and, frankly, irresponsible for the media and, frankly, others to distort the nature of these counterterrorism programs. these programs are legal, constitutional, and utilized only under the strict oversight

of both parties and in all three branches of government including a highly scrutinized judicial process. but in the end, these programs rely on the trust of the american people, and with that trust lacking today, i'm asking my fellow members of congress as well as the media, fact check first before mischaracterizing programs that save lives. i believe we can and we must protect both security and liberty when it comes to counterterrorism efforts, and i believe these programs do just that. mr. president, i thank you. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations which the clerk will report. the clerk: luis felipe restrepo of pennsylvania to be united states district judge. kenneth john gonzales of new mexico to be united states district judge. the presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be 30 minutes for debate, equally

divided and controlled in the usual form. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. udall: mr. president, i'm pleased to rise today to strongly support the confirmation of mr. kenneth gonzalez for u.s. district judge for the district of new mexico. mr. gonzalez is an exceptional nominee. with an impressive range of legal experience and expertise, he was unanimously confirmed by the senate as the u.s. attorney for the district of new mexico in 2010. but he is more than just his resume. remarkable as he is, he is also an inspiring american story. mr. gonzalez grew up in the poaci valley in the northern part of our constituent state, the first in his family to graduate from college. with the help of scholarships and grants, he received his undergraduate and law degrees from the university of new

mexico. a school that i'm proud to call my alma mater. after graduating, he was a law clerk to u.s. -- new mexico supreme court justice joseph baca and he worked as a legislative assistant for senator jeff bingaman. he began his career as a federal prosecutor in the united states attorney's office for the district of new mexico in 1999. process a cuting a wide range of federal offenses including narcotics, and vitamins cases. -- violent crime cases. he holds the rank of major as judge advocate in the u.s. army reserve which he joined in september, 2001. he has provided critical legal assistance to hundreds of active and retired soldiers and spouses both here and overseas. in 2008, he was called to active duty as a part of operation enduring freedom where he was stationed at fort bragg

and served as a senior trial counsel. mr. gonzalez has been an exemplary u.s. attorney for the district of new mexico. he oversees a broad array of criminal and civil cases. i'd also like to note that he has made indian country a priority in the u.s. attorney's office, making a real difference in prosecuting cases of violence against native women and children. not surprisingly, his advice and counsel are highly valued. he serves on the attorney general's advisory committees on native american issues, on the southwest border and immigration issues and on the environmental and natural resources working group and as a member of the 10th sirktd advisory council. he is also a member of the new mexico hispanic bar association. if confirmed, he'll join only 58 other hispanic active district court judges, less

than 10% of the country's 677 district court judgeships. mr. gonzalez is esteemed for his diverse experience, for his even temperament, and for his integrity. from a young man dreaming of going to college to his life in public service, his story is one of great determination and commitment. he has shown a reverence for and dedication to the law throughout his career. i urge his confirmation. i know that ken gonzalez will serve new mexico well on the bench. and with that, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. heinrich: i'd like to take a few minutes to speak about the nomination of ken etd gonzalez to be a federal district judge

for the district of new mexico. ken, as he's known back home to many of us, is truly a standout nominee. i wish i could take credit for his nomination, but that credit belongs to our former u.s. senator, jeff bing amanman and to our -- bingaman and to tom udall. i thank both of them for putting forward such a great candidate for this position and i'm very pleased to be here today to support him. ken has a long and distinguished record of public service including more than a decade of service in our military. ken has served as the u.s. attorney for new mexico since april of 2010, and his elevation to lead that office followed more than a decade of service there as an assistant u.s. attorney. i'd like to highlight at least one of his many accomplishments that i find particularly important. i think ken's efforts as u.s. attorney demonstrate not only his character intlect

but the dedication that he has to serving his home state. and to making it a better place for all our residents. much of new mexico is indian country, for which the u.s. attorney has responsibility to prosecute criminal activity. ken has taken the initiative to reorganize and to focus the u.s. attorney's resources to more effectively combat the higher than average rates of vitamin --, violent crime and sexual assault that has plagued indian country. this includes the first indian country crime section for any office. it pursues felony offenses on tribal lands. the office is collaborating with troobl prosecutors to investigate and prosecute domestic violence in 20 pueblos and tribes throughout the state of new mexico. this is just one example of

ken's work, but throughout his career ken has shown a dedication to serving the people of new mexico. it is the sum of all of his efforts and accomplishments that make me believe he will make an outstanding addition to the federal bench. and i'm pleased today we're at the final step towards getting him here. the process for getting to the federal bench is a long road to travel. the judiciary committee leadership from both sides of the aisle take seriously its responsibility to ensure that every nominee is fit to serve. and i want to say a special thanks to senator leahy and senator grassley for working together and with senator udall and myself to get ken through this process. as the vetting process surely showed, ken has the knowledge, temperament and integrity to serve on the federal bench. and i have no doubt that he will distinguish himself there as he has throughout his entire legal

career. i strongly support his nomination and i urge all of my colleagues to do the same. thank you, mr. president, and i would yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. isakson: i'd like to create address the senate for three minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call. mr. isakson: i ask the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. isakson: i ask to speak for three minutes as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. isakson: plnts i rise proudly today to speak to a resolution that i've introduced to the united states senate commending john robert lewis, congressman from the city of atlanta, civil rights leader of the 1960's and 1950's and my personal friend. in 1954 i was fen years old when the atlanta public schools when brown versus the board of education was decided in the united states supreme court. john lewis was four years older than me, born outside of pike county, alabama went to the pike county segregated public schools. he went on to fiske university

to get a degree in religion and philosophy and volunteered for sit-ins to break the first sit-in in lunch councilors in nashville. this year marks the 50let anniversary of the big six in civil rights. as i'm sure the president will remember it was 50 years ago this august that martin luther king led a march on washington and gave his speech i have a dream on the lincoln memorial. there were six great civil rights leaders then, only one left, john robert lewis. john is my friend, i'm come patriot and our lives with are parallelled each other all the way through. john introduced me when i was elected to the house of representatives. this this year i joined john on the 50th anniversary of the crossing of the edmond pelt it's brinch in selma, alabama, the bloody march on bloody sunday which turned around the voting rights act, saw to it that every american got equal access to vote an changed the history of our country. it's a privilege to honor john

today on the 50th anniversary of the crossing of the edmund pettis bridge. john recently suffered the loss of his beautiful wife lillian. she is survived by their son john miles lewis, and john is a great leader to this day on the floor of the united states house, a great leader for the state of georgia and one with whom i am pleased to serve with as united states senator. history has many heroes and there are pictures and carvings are all over this comal capitol but none that survivessed their rights for others. john lewis is such a person. i'm honored to recognize him with this resolution today. and i thank the president of the senate for the time to make the speech. i yield back my time or yield to the distinguished senator from vermont. the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: mr. president, i thank my dear colleague from

georgia. mr. president, i have a longer statement i'll place in the record, but i obviously support the nominees that are before us, both of them, i don't know if we'll have roll call votes on both but i strongly support both if we'll have roll call votes on both but i strongly support both of them. question of nominations, i attended president obama's nomination of of the d.c. circuit a couple weeks ago. and i've heard some of my colleagues on the republican side being very critical of the president for not sending nominations for judicial vacancies to the senate even though when he has, some of them they've held up for over a year or more before they -- or six months to a year before they

then vote overwhelmingly for the person, but they hold them up and say why don't you send more people. and frankly, a lot of people say, why should i spend six months or a year waiting while they hold me up? but now the president has sent nominees for the multiple vacancies that continue on the d.c. circuit. so the same senators who are complaining that he wasn't sending up nominees now say that he's sending up too many. my friends on the other side of the aisle are saying, you're not sending up enough but you're sending up too many. i think maybe the american people see the fallacy of that argument. having been unfairly criticized in connection with the nomination of judge srinivasan,

saying why don't you get him up here for a vote even though republicans asked us to delay him, making -- i've learned from that that cooperating and delaying at their request i'm going to get criticized for delaying. so we might as well get forward. we make every effort to schedule prompt hearings for these impressive nominees, each of whom received the highest possible rating of well qualified from the nonpartisan a.b.a. standing committee on the federal judiciary. we have three people who have the highest possible rating. they -- and the last time we had somebody for d.c. circuit, even though republicans said let's keep delaying, keep delaying and i did at their request and they criticized me for delaying, here they are, we'll go forward with it. i consulted the ranking

republican on the committee and informed him of the plan to notice the first hearing for july 10. that gives plenty of time for everybody to read all the record. they're going to be on vacation for the 4th of july week. they can read it during vacation. that will be 36 days since the nomination and a slightly slower time line than we followed for the more recent confirmation for the nominee to the eighth circuit. and i'm inclined to include the nomination of patricia millet of virginia in our july 10th confirmation hearing. so i urge those republicans who say first the president's not moving fast enough and then when he does move, say he's moving too fast, reconsider their approach, work with the president. let's have fair hearings on these three nominees and go forward with them. do agreel t

qualified judges. the -- you know, the -- it's disappointing that the same republican senators who said during the george w. bush administration the d.c. circuit should have 11 filled judgeships and voted for confirm president bush's nominees for the ninth, 10th and 11th seats. now there's a democrat in the white house, they say, oh, no, no, no, they shouldn't be filled. and it seems that this president has to be treated differently than the previous presidents. i'm not sure why the difference but that's what they want. well, frankly, i voted for a lot of president bush's nominees, as i have -- in fact, i'd say i voted for 7% t 97% to 98% of all republican nominees over 38 years.

i voted for more republican nominees than any republican presently in the senate for -- for judges. there's no republican in the senate who has voted for more republican nominees of republican presidents for judgeships than i have. so i don't need the lecture about holding up. i'd ask consent my full statement be placed a part -- mid part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: and i yield the floor. mr. grassley: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i'm going to vote for all of the judges that are on the -- for the roll calls and the silent votes today. so i'm going to spend my time, instead of speaking about the people that we're going to vote for, in response to what my chairman just stated about the record of confirming judges. so i want to inform my fellow

senators and the american people regarding the facts on judicial nominations. today we will confirm two more nominees. i would note that we confirmed two judges just four days ago. after today, the senate will have confirmed 197 lower court nominees. we've defeated two. so on a score of 197-2, i think it's a pretty outstanding reco record. that's a success rate of the president's nominees being approved 99%. and we have been doing that at a fast pace. during the last congress, we confirmed more judges than any congress since the 103rd congress and that get set during the years of 1993 and 1994. this year, the beginning of president obama's second term,

we've already confirmed more judges than were confirmed in the entire first year of president bush's second term. it's good for emphasis again. we've already confirmed more nominees this year than we did during the entirety of 2005, the first year of president bush's second term. after today, there will only be five article 3 judges remaining on the executive calendar to be considered by this senate. those are three district no, ma'am dismeez twnominees and twt nominees. two of those were reported out last week, two more about a month ago, and one has been on the calendar about two months, yet somehow my colleagues on the other side of the aisle cite this as evidence of obstructionism. compare that, then, to the calendar of june 2004 when 30 judicial nominees were on the

calendar, 10 circuit and 10 district. in fact, four of those were from pennsylvania, as is one of the nominees today, and i don't recall any senate democrat complaining about how many nominations were piling up at the calendar during that time of 2004. nor do i remember protestations from my colleagues on the other side that judicial nominees were moving too slowly. last week when we confirmed two pennsylvania judges, there were statements made on the floor that we were treating president obama's nominees very different than those of president bush. so, again, let's look at the record. as i said, there were four pennsylvania nominees on the calendar june of 2004. jean prater was nominated november 2003, had a hearing the following january, was reported

in march, confirmed june. lawrence stengle was nominated november 2003, had a hearing the following february, was reported in march, was confirmed in june. juan sanchez was nominated in november, had a hearing the following february, was reported in march and was confirmed in june. those milestones are nearly identical to other pennsylvanian nominees today who was nominated last november, just like the ones i mentioned. he had a hearing the following february, was reported in march, and now will be confirmed in june. if we have been unfair to this nominee, as it has now claimed, where was the outcry from senate democrats on the bush nominees that i just described? the fact is, there is no difference in how this president's nominees are being treated versus how president

bush's nominees were being treated. remember, now there are only five article 3 judicial nominees remaining after the vote on these two today. yet, as i mentioned, in june 2004, there were 30 nominations pending on the calendar. some of those nominees had been reported out more than a year earlier and most were pending for months and some of them never got an up-or-down vote. the bottom line is that the senate is processing the president's nominees exceptionally fair. president obama certainly is being treated more fairly in the beginning of his second term than senate democrats treated president bush in 2005. it is not clear to me how allowing more votes so far this

year than president bush got in an entire 12-month period of time amounts to -- quote -- "unprecedented delay and obstruction." yet that is the complaint that we hear over and over from the other side. last week it was stated that with the president -- quote -- "republicans have never let vacancies get below 72." end of quote. mr. president, after today's vote, there will be 77 vacancies in the federal judiciary, but 52 of those spots are without nominee. so how is it republicans' fault then that the president has not sent 52 nominees up here to the committee? because we obviously -- obviously, commonsense ought to tell you that we can't act on nominees who are not presented to the senate. just one example we'll

illustrate. last week the chairman of the judiciary committee singled out the vacancies on the eastern district of pennsylvania. we're confirming the third judge to that court after two last week. four vacancies remain but there are no nominees pending in the senate for the eastern district of pennsylvania. it was also stated that the seat we are filling today has been vacant for over -- for -- for four years, as if republicans were to blame for that. the fact is that the seat went vacant june 8, 2009. president obama was the president then. he waited over three years and five months before making a nomination november the 7th, 2012. why did the president make the people of pennsylvania wait so long, and why are republicans being blamed because they have to wait so long?

that wasn't the fault on this side of the aisle, yet now we are accused of obstruction. so i just wanted to set the record straight, set it straight again before we vote on these nominees. i expect they will both be confirmed and i congratulate them on their confirmations and i want to place the balance of my statement in the record. and as i said at the beginning, i'm going to vote to support these nominees. i yield the floor. and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call: mr. leahy: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from vermont. mr. leahy: i ask consent that the call of the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. leahy: mr. president, i ask that -- any time remaining be yielded back. the presiding officer: without objection, all time is yielded back. the question occurs on the restrepo nomination. all those in favor say aye. opposed, no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. mr. leahy: thank you.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, the question occurs on the gonzalez nomination. mr. leahy: i believe there is a request on the yeas and nays on this. so i request the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there apings to be. -- there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: s

vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: does any senator in the chamber wish to vote or change his or her vote? if not, the yeas are 89, the nays are zero and the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, -- the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent we now proceed to a period of morning business and now -- from now until 20 till 7:00 and during that period of time it's my understanding there is a colloquy to be between 2010 senator brown and senator isakson that will take that 15 minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: when that time is up i ask to be recognized. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the motions to reconsider are considered made and laid upon the table. the president will be immediately notified of the senate's action, and the senate will resume legislative session.

mr. isakson: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. isakson: i ask to be recognized along with senator brown from highway ohio to gauge in a colloquy. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. isakson: i'm proud to stand as a resident of georgia and as capital city, atlanta the home for the centers for disease control in america, a great institution to with which senator brown and i are familiar and want to talk about his achievements today. c.d.c. is the nation's health protection agency but it's really the world's health protection agency. it's built a strong public health and disease detection network for working with state, local agencies, private partners and universities and communities to stop disease and stop outbreaks. by way of example, c.d.c. led a fult state response to last week's meningitis outbreak that resulted in 745 infections and 48 deaths in 28 states. they contained food borne

pathogen such as hepatitis a, salmonella and e. coli found in frozen food products. c.d.c. puts science into action every day to protect the american people, using breakthroughs such as my control boardal genomics to stop them earlier and prevent them better. environmental hazard, biosecurity threats and natural disasters, c.d.c. provides direct support within hours of the superstorm sandy last year. we need to have c.d.c. to be ready for this year's hurricane season as it deals with other public threats pacific northwest c.d.c. provides crucial information on the health status on the risks to the american people. the data helps determine the best options for reducing medical costs. at a time when the u.s. government is not looked upon with favor by the american people i think it's very interesting to note that a recent poll identified c.d.c. as the most trusted federal government agency with the american people. i think that's something we owe

a tip of the hat to. senator brown? mr. brown: i'm appreciated of the work he's done with the centers for disease control in his home state of atlanta. there is no federal agency quite like the c.d.c. in this nation or across the world. our nation's health cannot be strength end at the expense of our health. in the 21st century it's easy to overlook this nation's pacific northwest safety net. too often we take nor granted that our children aren't being tripled by polio or dying from whooping cough because we have immunizations. we take for granted that we have stronger teeth and less tooth decay because of water floor days in our united states communities. we take for granted few people die of infectious diseases like cholera and tuberculosis because we've made the remarkable progress we have i sanitation, in hygiene, and disease surveillance. we take these advancements for

granted because for over six decades the c.d.c. has beening to doing an extraordinary job of ensuring americans have basic health protections. the c.d.c.'s work along with that of other public health advocates and researchers have is credited with increasing americans' life expectancy by 25 years. 25 years of,, a quarter of a century longer because of our investment in public health. the c.d.c.'s reach and responsibilities as intimated by senator isakson aren't limited by our country's borders. due to globalization it matters a great deal how other countries respond to health threats and the c.d.c. plays an essential role in henning their international partners react to these threats. the c.d.c. is the gold standard, the global leader in public health prevention. other nations follow our lead. yet the c.d.c.'s leadership is not guaranteed.

even with its topnotch facilities and world-class staff the c.d.c. faces halings chalings to this continued leadership. the c.d.c.'s base budget authority is at its lowest level in a decade. the fiscal year 13 budget is about $600 million below its fiscal year 2012 level. this reduction undercuts the health security of all americans even those that never once think of the existence of the centers for disease control. reduction in the c.d.c. budget has harnlful, immediate and long-term consequences across the u.s. and around the world. this reduction affects the ability of our state and local health departments to provide on-the-ground services. as my friend from georgia explained during his discussion of the deadly fungal meningitis outbreak, funding to the c.d.c. is critical to the foundation of public health. we invest in the health of families in i could in ohio, we

support programs such as the epidemiology laboratory that addresses infectious disease threats. when we invest in the c. dr. dmplet c. we ensure state and local health departments are able to detect the outbreaks. outthis funding we leave ourselves vulnerable to the initial threat of health stlets such as emerging new diseases such agency the mers and the novel h 7 avian flu virs we read about. public health departments across the nation have unfortunately already lost thousands of jobs and will lose more if c.d.c. continues to dwindle. before turning it back over to senator isakson, i'd like to emphasize a point he made, that the c.d.c. responds to long-term health threats as well as to urgent, immediate health dangers. these threats don't make the headlines. so much of c.d.c.'s work you never hear about, you never read

about because its name, centers for disease and prevention is -- is such an important part of this. c.d.c. continues a long-standing tradition of working in partnership with many international organizations and global partners to ensure that our country takes the lead in stopping these threats. i've had the pleasure of seeing c.d.c.'s dedicated expert staff working in africa and in atlanta and in communities like medina county, ohio, and all over the world, working to keep these countries and our communities healthier and safer and helping keeping americans safe as well. mr. isakson: will the senator from ohio yield for a moment? mr. brown brown: sure. i yield to the senator. mr. isakson: i ran a country for 20 years and a healthy work force willing to work every day made a difference. a lot of time we think of c.d.c. and outbreaks in africa and e bow lie and salmonella, but it's an advocate for better health

habits and better health for americans. don't you think that's important for american productivity and for the american worker? mr. brown: i thank the senator from georgia. i think that's exactly the point. while the c.d.c., while, perhaps, those who know of the c. dsm c., and obvious -- c.d.c., obviously people in georgia know it more intimately than in my state, they more than likely think of them doing something in asia or africa, not locally. we know that our hospitals for instance are sometimes havens for unnecessary illnesses due to health care -- to -- to infections acquired in the hospital, antibiotic resistant superbugs such as c.r.a., a family of germs with high levels of rsence t resistance to antib. i wonder if my friend would expand on that. mr. isakson: i appreciate your focus on that. you know, my friend from ohio is exactly right. the antimicrobial resist sense a serious threat to americans' health. many are resistant to multiple classes of antibiotics. and i might add a personal note.

three years ago i developed a mrsa infection in a hospital in atlanta and almost lost my life to an antibiotic resistant disease and infection, so i know how important it is to have a research facility like the c.d.c. that can constantly stay one step ahead of the evolution of defenses these microbes bring up themselves. as a recent example, a recent outbreak of c.r.e. where one out of two patients unfortunately passed away, c.d.c. must have resources to quickly track and stop outbreaks and give health care providers timely information. without that, you have the risk of a contagion. mr. brown: so that's certainly right. it seems there are new emerging and potentially dangerous health threats. we obviously know of -- of -- of the disease you just -- of the acquired infection you just mentioned. we know now of the h-7-n-9 bird flu and mers. how do you see, senator isakson,

how do you see c.d.c.'s unique role in tracking and attempting to prevent the spread of these threats before they reach our shores, before we in american hospitals, at grady memorial or at med central in mansfield, ohio, might have -- might be victims of that? mr. isakson: well, you make a great point because c.d.c. is kind of the crucible where all the partners in health care in the country come together. you might remember when we were here on 9/11/2001, shortly after the attacks on the trade center in new york, and then the anthrax letters started to be mailed to capitol hill, it was c.d.c. within days that tracked down the -- the anthrax and helped us develop the defenses so we didn't have a problem with the anthrax infection and got the cipro distributed to those who were exposed to keep them from suisease. that's the kind of timely effort that you need from an agency like c.d.c. to be able to quickly respond. public health security is a component of our national security, as evidenced by the anthrax threat of engineered

biological weapons, c.d.c. remains vigilant and ready to act with experts and countermeasures to protect the american people. with emerging disease such as mrsa and h--9-n, c.d.c. has sent teams around the world to investigate, ship diagnostic kits to the affected areas and save lives day in and day out in the world. mr. brown: if the senator would yield again, the mers was identified recently. c.d.c. scientists, as you know, developed and shipped a diagnostic kit to be used in the field. talk -- talk about -- one of the things that -- when i talk to people about public health and about, you know, certainly the importance of n.i.h. put especially in the focus in public health, of c.d.c., we talk about polio and what c.d.c. did to -- to address and not quite yet wipe out but in our country certainly wipe out, and in most of the rest of the world, the -- the -- the polio virus. give us a little bit of history

on how important that was in and what we learned from that, if you would, senator isakson. mr. isakson: when i grew up in the 1950's, i remember taking the sugar vaccine for polio. it's a dread disease that's affected the american people and people around the world for years. but now it's almost totally eradicated. why? because of a worldwide organizations, not the least of which is c.d.c., to see to it that the inoculations are made available. it resides now in afghanistan, pacpakistan and nigeria. we're close to have a polio-free world. just like we're getting closer and closer to measles which primarily now has an outbreak in nigeria. c.d.c.'s readiness and ability to deploy at a moment's notice makes all the difference in the world. i don't want to sell here but i have to make one note. one of the reasons c.d.c. is in atlanta and that's such a good location is they can be anywhere in the world in a matter a day internationalairport and not a y

that a country or community calls and says we need help, we've got a problem and we don't know what it is but it has to be identified. and c.d.c. scientists and doctors are put on the planes and fly around the world to diagnose, identify and provide the cure so the disease does not get into an outbreak that takes thousands of lives. mr. brown: thank you. and in closing, i want to just close with a personal story about polio. my brother, born in 1947, was -- of the three of us and three boys in the family, my brother is the oldest, my brother bob, and when he was in about the first or second or third -- maybe the third grade, my fath father, who was a local family physician in mansfield, was asked by if not the c.d.c. some national health organization to give polio vaccine in mansfield, ohio, as there were doctors in other communities asked to do that. and they chose my father in part because he was a good doctor. they also chose him because he had a son, had a child that was

in second or third or fourth grade at the time and people were afraid, they weren't sure about injecting that vaccine into their arm because a lot of families thought that actually could cause polio. there was all that fear. scientists didn't believe that but an awful lot of people did. so there's a picture front page of the "mansfield news journal" in the mid-1950's of my brother getting a polio vaccine. it was, i believe, his was salk. sabin came later with the cube. he got the salk vaccine administered by my dad. and c.d.c. or one of the public health groups -- i apologize, i don't know which -- made sure that happened all over the country so people could be more reassured. and that was really the beginning with salk and then sabin of the eradication of polio in this country. and it's hard to think back, the presiding officer is not old enough that senator isakson and i can -- can remember with our parents the fear in the 19 -- until the end of the 1950's of parents that their child would

go swimming and might come back as, franklin roosevelt did, with a case of polio. and whatever the causes of that virus spreading scared so many people. so i -- i think in these days of hyperpartisanship consuming washington, i appreciate the work of senator isakson on -- on working together with c.d.c. because this is far and above -- far and away more important than any political kinds of differences that we might have. and i'll let senator isakson close. mr. isakson: well, i appreciate very much the senator's focus c.d.c. i think it's ironic we close talking about franklin roosevelt. but in the 1940's as our president, he suffered from polio and would take the train to georgia and go down to warm springs to get the therapy of those warm springs which then was the only mechanism of treating polio. today in georgia, because of c.d.c., we have a mechanism of eradicating polio. that's the type of evolution we want to see in health care for -- not just for our country but for the world. c.d.c. is the best investment of american tax dollars we could possibly make. i support it wholeheartedly and i thank s

today. and i yield back the balance of our time and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. udall: madam president, i ask to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: and i ask to speak as if in -- with -- within morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: thank you, madam president. like many others, i'm deeply disturbed by the current situation in syria, the appalling atrocities, the tragic loss of life, the reported use of chemical weapons. this deserves the clear condemnation of the international community. but i am also concerned by the push for intervention in this war, by the rush to judgment for

the united states to yet again become entangled in a civil war. the president has decided to send arms to the rebels to fight the government of bashar al-assad. the full scope of this intervention is not yet clear but this path is dangerous and unnecessary. the assad regime is cruel and corrupt. we can all agree on that point. but many of the groups fighting against him do not share our values and could be worse. they may pose long-term risks to us and to our allies. assad's enemies may very well be america's enemies. the fact is, we do not know. a number of experts, including our military brass, have sounded alarms warning that the options to intervene in syria range from bad to worse and could prove

damaging to america's strategic interests. by flooding syria with weapons, we risk arming those who ultimately may seek to do us harm. we have been down this road before and recent history tells a cautionary tale. in the 1980's, the united states supported a rebel insurgency to repel the soviet occupation of afghanistan. back then, as now, many members of congress pushed for arming these rebels. the united states supplied weapons, intelligence, and training with the goal to defeat the soviets in afghanistan. our short-term victory had tragic consequences for the future. radical members of the insurgency formed the taliban regime, giving safe haven to terrorist training camps, providing material support to osama bin laden and his fledgling al qaeda movement. through state-sponsoredteorism ,

al qaeda thrived and perpetrated attacks on the u.s.s. cole and the world trade center on 9/11. the aftermath has been more than a decade of war. with tragic loss of american lives and treasure. this is history to learn from, not repeat, and yet many who advocated for previously disastrous middle east interventions are leading the charge to arm groups we know little about and to declare war through airstrikes on another middle eastern country. what little we do know with the syrian rebels is exstrombly disturbing. the opposition is fractured, some are sympathetic to the enemies of the united states and our allies, including israel and turkey. there are reliable reports that some of the rebels even include

iraqi sunni insurgents, the same groups that still target the current iraqi army and government. we know the american -- we know that american law currently considers some of the rebel elements to be terrorist groups. the u.s. has designated one of the key opposition faction fact- the nusra front -- as being an al qaeda-affiliated group. i notice our leader is on the floor, and so i would just yield to the leader and hope that my remarks can be in the record, included in one sequence. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i -- madam president, i appreciate very much the courtesy of my friend from new mexico. madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i now ask unanimous consent that when the senate resumes consideration of s. 744, the immigration bill, on tuesday, june 1-rb8g the time

until 12:30 and the time from 2:15 to 3:00 be equally divided between the leaders or their designees. at 3:00 p.m., the senate begin to vote on the amendments blow. there will be no morning business tomorrow? okay, so on with my consent agreement -- suggestion. at 3:00 p.m., the sna the proceed to votes on the amendments listed behoe in the following order: thune 1197, landrieu 1222, vitter 1228, tester 1198. that there be no second-degree amendments in order prior to the votes, all amendments be subject to a 60-vote threshold.

there be two minutes equally divided between the votes. after the first vote, they be 10 minutes. madam president, i have spoken to my friend shall the ranking member of the judiciary committee, the senior senator from iowa, and i wanted to add the heller amendment. however, i think that i understand the republicans want to pick their own amendments. they don't want me picking them. so i understand that. so i haven't included that in the consent agreement. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. udall: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from new mexico. mr. udall: madam president, i'd ask consent that my remarks all be in one sequence in the record and then i just have a couple more minutes, senator

grassley, so i'll finish up here. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. udall: thank you. speaking of the syrian opposition, the opposition is very unorganized. they lack a chain of command. they are subject to deadly infighting, and if they are able to defeat assad, they may turn on each other, or worse, the united states or our allies. simply put, once we have introduced arms, neither we nor their fighters may be able to guarantee control over them. such weapons could end up in the hands of groups and people who do not represent our interests, possibly including terrorists who target the united states, our allies like israel and turkey, and the iraqi army and government. an iraq that we spend billions of dollars and thousands of american lives to establish, those who are pushing for this military irchtmilitary intervend

answer: can arms be counted for an kept oust of the hands of extremist groups? can they assure us that those arms will the become a threat to us and our allies, including israel and turkey? and if the answer to the two previous questions is "no," can they explain why transferring our weapons to the rebels, whose members may themselves be affiliated with terrorist and extremist groups, is a sensible option for the american people, what national interest does this serve? i do not believe that those questions have been answered. i think the majority of the american people agree. they do not see the justification of our intervention in this civil war. we need to slow down this clamor for more weapons and war to syria. and to traik a step back from this plunge into very muddy and dangerous waters. stopping radicalism and protecting our allies is a vital

-- is of vital importance. however, we come to the ultimate question and one that has not been adequately answered: will this hasty march to intervene in another middle east conflict achieve these goals? or will it ultimately harm the interests of the united states, leading to yet another bloody, costly overseas conflict? and ironically worsening the terrorist threat? we should listen to the lessons of history. after over a decade of war overseas, now is not the time to arm an unorganized, unfamiliar, and unpr unpredictable group of rebels. now is not the time to rush into another middle east civil war. the wings of war are blowing yet again and we should be ever-vigilant before we venture into other storm. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of s. 744, which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 0, s. 844, a bill to provide for comprehensive immigration reform and for other purposes. mr. grassley: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from iowa. mr. grassley: at every confirmation hearing of every cabinet position and probably a lot of other positions as well, invariably a cabinet nominee is asked a question similar to "wilwillyou when you're called a committee hearing, will you come, will you answer inquiries made by members of the committee to certain questions you might be asked? invariably -- and i don't know an exception to this -- we get

the answer yes, they will respond to our communiques. well, i come to the senate today to ask how come secretary napolitano of homeland security hasn't answered inquiries that we've made that are -- that ought to be made by now. the answers ought to be made by now because we're dealing with the legislation the questions refer to. so on april the 23rd, the judiciary committee held a hearing to discuss immigration reform, and the bill presented by the group of eight. secretary napolitano was the only witness. the hearing lasted two mors and 20 minutes -- two hours and 20 minutes and most members are able to ask her five to ten minute's worth of questions. we submitted questions for the record, which means we submitted questions to her in writing for

her to answer. we were given just 24 hours to turn around the questions for the committee to present to her. now it has been over seven weeks -- that's more than 49 days -- since we submitted those questions to secretary napolitano. we have yet to get answers to those questions. the questions i asked were genuine and related to the implementation of the bill, if it were to be signed in to law. i asked questions of the secretary because she will be responsible for carrying out congress's intentions. i want -- wanted to know about costs and feasibility, and i asked for data and specifics. so i'm concerned that i have yet to receive responses. keeping information from congress and the american people

is not helpful to ensuring that we have the best product coming out of the senate. and since this bill is right now before the united states senate, it would be important for members of this body to have answers to the questions that i'm going to tell you that i submitted to her. so i'd like to that take this opportunity to discuss some of the questions that i asked of secretary napolitano -- not all of them. right now i'd like to focus on nine questions that i asked about border security, because border security is the issue before the united states senate as part of this 1,175-page bill. i may discuss other questions later in the week. question number one: secretary na napolitano, you hae

emphasized that apprehensions had at the border are down and in doing so praised the administration's record on border security. however, customs and border protection has just released numbers showing that apprehension increased 13% over the last year. does the fact that border apprehensions are up mean that border is becoming less secure? question number one to secretary napolitano. and, obviously, is the border more secure or isn't the border more secure? that's the whole basis of the debate over the last week in this body. question number two to secretary napolitano: the bill only calls for establishing an entry-exit system for air and seaports before implementing the path to citizenship. aside from

impediments are there to instituting the system at land ports? question number three: the bill requires your department to establish a strategy to identify where fencing should be deployed along the southern border. during the hearing, you -- meaning secretary napolitano -- indicated that the administration believes that sufficient fencing is in place and that you would prefer not to increase fencing along the southern border. so my question, do you anticipate that your study will call for any additional physical fencing? now, that seems to me to be a pretty important question at this time when border security is very basic to whether or not there will be any legalization. we have not received an answer yet. question number four: during the hearing, we discussed

the fact that the northern border was not part of the trigger and did not need to be secured before green cards are distributed. you said that the northern border is a different border but that it's part of the discussion. can you elaborate? can you describe how the northern border is different? please provide a list of -- quote, unquote -- other than canadians that have traces crocked the border i will lylely, including their country of origin. question number five: section 1102 of s. 744 requires the secretary to increase the number of c.b.p. -- customs and border patrol officers by 3,500. however, it does not specify how many of those agents will be

used to secure the physical border versus customs enforcement and other mission requirements. how do you envision this section being implemented and how would the department make decisions with regard to determining how many agents are hired to secure the physical borders? talking about border security, it seems to me that's a legitimate question that ought to be answered by the secretary a long time before we even started debate on this bill but surely before we get done with it. the sixth question: section 1104 provides funding for only the tucson sector of the southwest border region. does the administration support only resources to this sector? are there other sectors that should be included? if so, please provide details.

seventh question: section 1105 relates solely to the state of arizona. should this provision be expanded to all of the southwest border states? question number eight: section 1107 provides for a grant program in which individuals who reside or work in the border region and are -- quote -- "at greater risk of border violence due due to the lack of cellular service" -- can apply to purchase phones with access to 9/11 and equipped with g.p.s. does the administration believe that the southwest border region is safe and secure, rendering this grant program unnecessary? question number nine, and my last question that i will discuss tonight, does the administration have any views on section 1111 on the use of

force, including the requirement that the department collaborate with the assistant attorney general for civil rights division of the department of justice, end of quote. now, those are the nine questions that i think are very pertinent to just the part of the bill that we spent the last week debating, and we're going to spend a few more days debating, is the border secure. very basic to everything else that goes on in this piece of legislation. so as i said, the questions i have asked the secretary are meant to ensure that we pass the best bill possible. we ought to know how she will carry out the bill if it's signed into law. i hope she will provide these answers and the other questions that i submitted on april 24. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from maine. mr. king: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. king: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. king: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 75, s. 330.

the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 75, s. 330, a bill to amend the public health service act to establish safeguards and standards of quality for research and transplantation of organs and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection, the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. king: i further ask that the committee-reported substitute be considered, the grassley amendment which is at the desk be agreed to, the substitute as amended be agreed to, the bill as amended be read a third time and passed and the motions to reconsider be made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. king: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the appointment at the desk appear separately in the record as if officer: without.idin objection. mr. king: madam president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until

10:00 a.m. on tuesday, june 18, 2013, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning business be deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and that following any leader remarks, the senate be in a period of morning business for one hour with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each, with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees, with the republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half. that following morning business, the senate resume consideration of s. 744, the comprehensive immigration reform bill under the previous order. and finally, that the senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings. there will be up to four roll call votes at 3:00 p.m. in relation to the amendments to immigration bill tomorrow. if there is no further business

to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow.

hispanic the committee reported last week we were not quite sure they were taking it upon such quick action when this bill was just a couple of weeks ago they were not sure it would come up on the floor at all. it would be definitely marked up in the subcommittee that the full committee but why coming to the floor with such alacrity that nobody knows the answer stephen there has been a change in the bill since it was marked up last week. what is that bill and why was language added? >> leaders announced last friday after it was a change they would add the extension for rape and incest and it -- originally was a ban all abortions after 20 weeks with the exception of pregnancies that threatened the life of the woman now they addling which for in the case of rape and ies because there was a dustup with the sponsor of the bill

who said abortion in the case of rape is rare but what he meant after 20 weeks resulting from rape was a rare but democrats took the languages and ran with it so they decided they would add that language to the bill even though the amendment failed actually at the markup. the also decided not to let congress manage the bill on the floor but managed by marcia blackburn because she is not even a member of the judiciary committee where the billy emerged from a. >> host: why? >> the republicans are very sensitive. last year todd taken from misery also made comments from the unlikelihood of getting pregnant after rape and was losing his race also favored at the time some

republicans are very sensitive and i think when the congressman made that comment even not out of context they were sensitive to that and i wonder why it marshall blackbird would manage the bill when she is not on the committee and then realized there is not ising go republican woman so they did not have low woman they had to turn to someone else. >> host: this is a republican sponsored bill what are the response from the democrats? >> they hated that it is unconstitutional that republicans do with knowledge. the supreme court has been pretty clear that abortion cannot be banned before fetal viability that everybody agrees is about 23 weeks or later this reaches back at 20 weeks with the appeals court of you weeks ago struck down a similar arizona law. what they're hoping in

addition to making political statements about how much americans don't like abortion later in pregnancy but they hope that if it should pass to get to the supreme court i'd like the makeup of the senate and the president is unlikely to sign yet but should get there they are hoping the supreme court would have the law changed its mind but as it stands it does violate current supreme court precedent on abortion. >> host: to go back to the markup last week what was that debate like? >> guest: it was pretty testy they have been through this a lot. there was a bill last year simply that only applied to the district of columbia. a number of states have passed these kinds of laws and the justification they say is scientists suggested 20 weeks to present -- the pregnancy is when that a

fetus can feel pain it is disputed theory but the justification under the law being passed. they have a bill applying this only to the district of columbia because they can and and they put it on the floor but under suspension of the rules that requires a two-thirds majority and it did not pass or get the supermajority in this bill will not be that way but coming with the role the simple majority so it is much more likely it will pass but democrats had similar ideas that republicans were talking about how horrible abortion is an democrats talking about the woman and the constitution and the supreme court currently guarantees the woman a right to choose and particularly later in pregnancy with women in

difficult medical situations should have the right. >> host: the bill comes up on tuesday and you think it will pass. who are you watching the most closely? >> is generally tends to be a fairly republican and democratic split although there are a lot of democrats to vote antiabortion and this is a big issue with the affordable care act came up and many democrats that were worried about abortion votes to maintain the voting record many of them were voted out so they're not as quite as many as a used to be but it is largely a party line issue but not exclusive. there are fewer republicans who vote with abortion rights backers of these days and it is a much rare sight but i will look to see if there are any of those by would be interested in this bill because on its face

does violate supreme court precedents and will be interesting to see how many republicans are willing to go out on a whim it is stretching the balance on how far you can go with the abortion bill to still be considered within the realm of what the public release supports. >> host: what is likely to happen in the senate if it passes? >> it is hard to say i don't think it would take as it is but i could see them try to attach this to another bill to support its own to force the democrats who were in tough races to have to take a vote on this. i can definitely see that happening. >> host: how about the obama administration? >> guest: i don't believe they have won as of now but it was hard to believe the president would support this bill or promised to veto.

>> hoseovner thank you for your time. >> we think it's critical any regulation or lack there of that we need to be incentivized to invest in the physical infrastructure that is the core of every product we deliver. if we will be a world leader in the delivery of high-speed data, the most capable why five access points, it is key the regulatory environment in which we operate foster's as

opposed to inhibits further investment in that plan. >> should we have our packaging flexibility and options for consumers? that is what we're hopeful. we have for packages them never had before and is this the government's role or the negotiation between the distributors? and the business relationships is in government law and mandate but we are very respectful it is an important subject and we want to be a part of that dialogue. >> going as far back as abigail adams and martha washington, you find first ladies played an active role in the white house and the

campaigns it took to get there. abigail adams was a campaign strategist for her husband and help to advise him to to keep happy to win the election or keeping his coalition. they would talk incessantly about the politics of the day in legislation that needed to be passed and which senators and congressmen he could count on, what he needed to do to win more support. >> john roberts, author of ratings of first ladies takes a look at the nation's first ladies as political partners as of -- of their husbands rather than wives and mothers. tonight on c-span.

>> good morning everyone. i am the director of immigration policy here and thank you for coming today. we're very excited to have our two very distinguished guest here governor bush and governor barbara to talk about immigration reform reform, state and local impact and what everyone to talk about. as many of you know, we were founded in 2007 by former senate majority leader tom negative all, bob dole and george mitchell as a place for rigorous analysis and negotiation and respectable dialogue. we have multiple projects to combine politically balanced policymaking with the active advocacy and our region in february we launched the immigrati task force wir by govr

barber, former secretary of state condoleezza rice and former secretary of hud henry cisneros. we hope to work to many of the issues from the large immigration debate and we hope to host many events like this to key advocacy groups and policy-makers and academics and hopefully congressional members of the toughest issues of immigration refer we live for it to having any insights from the governor today from their unique perspective i will now turn over to the author of rising from katrina who will moderate today's discussion. thank you for being here. [applause] >> thank you very much and thank you for joining us today and you hear this

frequently that's the dust -- the guest needs no introduction because of you have the bios and you know, them well governor jeb bush the 43rd governor of florida 1998 to 2007 also co-author of immigration lawyers and the son of a president and the brother of president and many of his supporters with the exception of his mother fifth thing he could hold that office himself someday. [laughter] also with the gentleman next to me who is handy to have at the helm if your state encounters the worst natural disaster in history. governor barbour, a governor just one year and held offices as the 62nd

governor of mississippi through 2012 and before that chairman of the rnc 93 to 97 and now busy back to what he does best as a lobbyist to head of the immigration reform here at the bipartisan policy center. first i will go up each for a brief opening statement. governor bush? did i thank you for letting me come. we will talk about the state and local aspect of immigration reform but i will set the stage about why embracing our immigrant experience, heritage, is support for renewing america's greatness. i think our country is the only developed country that can grow at 3-1/2 or 4% per year for the next decade. we have abundant resources and a great talent and the

ability to rebuild the demographic para mid that has eroded dramatically. we're getting older and all of the societal changes taking place make it imperative for us to have immigration reform and the key element of an economic strategy for sustained growth and it is a huge opportunity i don't view it as a problem by embracing the enormous opportunity to fulfil our potential as a nation. it is within our grasp to do it now and i think the delay would be inappropriate because tepid growth will not allow us to deal with the problems that we face we will be overwhelmed by our problems if we don't grow economically and other elements of the strategy but without immigration i don't see how we can do it.

>> first, kathleen ask us to talk about three minutes and i cannot say hello and three minutes. [laughter] so i will limit my subject matter to stay within the balance but at this point* the kinds of things that have made me in this that america is in a global battle for capital and labor. if we're going to grow the economy in the united states at the rates he would talk about historical through our lifetime then we have got to have more labor. not only high skilled labor like science and technology and engineering and math but it is critical to increase the of h1-b visa and also start to do a better job to raise american kids to get

the master's and ph.d. engineering and physics but in the short term and in the midterm lot of the labor costs to come from other countries and we are so blessed that our university system is a magnet for the best in the world when it kid gets a ph.d. in engineering from mississippi state we should staple a green card to his diploma because if not he will go home to mom buy and hire 800 people were if we let him he would much rather stay here and it is almost universally accepted that we have the other essentials labor that is not a phd. california that biggest agricultural state more than half of the farm is

here illegally and only 4% are here on the special agricultural be said because they are cumbersome that policy so we cannot just focus on the top end but a judge is right if we're going to grow our e economy at the rate we can we need to remember gdp growth is simply productivity multiplied by the number of workers. i was not a math major but i can't figure out if the worker stays the same as it has with this administration is essentially the same number of people are working in the united states that were five years ago. is very hard to have gdp go up at that rate that will sustain for our children and grandchildren the lifestyle that we enjoy in we can

continue particularly with the energy changes. i amfocused on this for policy and the right policy for our economy is to have real comprehensive immigration. >> i have never heard it said that way. [laughter] >> governors before we talk about the wives i want to talk about the why. let's get the measure that is moving to the senate on immigration reform to make it to the house is it not true do believe they may even be considering immigration reform right now if not for what happened in the fall if mayor romney secure just 27% if not one of the fastest minority groups in the country?

>> i think we need to do it emigration. >> we're doing it right now because of politics. >> because he did not do with the first year laky said he was going to but this should not be about the partisais republicans need to be because it is good policy and democrats need to because it is good policy but it could have come up in the last four years but did not and now it is coming up in you will see bipartisan support and the reason is not good politics it makes you look at ronald reagan he used to say at the end of the day good policy is good politics if you have good policy and do what is right you get good results then get reelected. it spec gernor

bush, why aren't we doing it? in both parties feel a need for political reasons to forge a consensus on good policy. nothing wrong with that but republicans i say that canary in a cld wind is the asian americans if you are the pollster from gallup and did not have knowledge of american politics and were told here is a group with higher intact families, more entrepreneurial higher than average income higher college graduaporttion r presids re-election 75 / 23 that would be surprising. asian-americans are the canary in the cold wind i believe -- canary in the coal mine not because the

policies but because not engaged in issues of importance then we pay up price the democrats cannot keep going back to the will not promising to do things and not trying so both parties are focused so when you have the window of opportunity you need to ring gauge and i am proud this is one little part of policy world we have big structural problems and things that need to get done but here is a place where the process seems to be working and we should not be critical of that but celebrating the fact our democracy can work when people build confidence and faith in don't think there is an effort to outdo one another to forge a consensus which is done right now and i am very pleased the gang of 8 although the house is not quite as successful but on

their way and it leads me to believe there is a pretty good chance there will be an immigration law passed to take advantage of the strengths we have as the immigrant nation. >> governor bush i know what it is like when you write a book then you are surprised by the reaction you get when your book comes out. you think in hindsight i wish i had written something differently or changed this or describe my position different a. looking at the reaction to your book, is there anything you do differently or change and are you surprised by their reaction? >> no. i am not surprised but i do think everything is viewed from a political lens rather than a policy point* of view so those who work critical of my book had not read it i just assumed they would understand the substance of

the proposition before they were critical but i am not surprised we live in a hyper partisan and hyper political world and the books that we wrote has a set of recommendations that is eerily similar to what is discussed in the senate and the house. i feel pretty good about that. you can probably get it added deep discount on in a -- amazon. [laughter] totally off topic, but we wrote the book and rewrote it all school, here's the problem, here are elements peripheral to the challenge but their significance and here our life experiences of emigrants, and the context of why it is important is the last chapter was here are the recommendations and the publisher said this you have to put those in the first chapter and i thought

why? i read books from the beginning to the end but now in the world of twitter and media it has to be all a one sandy get to the conclusion first so our book if you don't have time to read the full block it will give you the set of recommendations in chapter one. >> but the past dues citizenship you would not change as an undeserving reward for conduct we cannot afford -- afford to encourage? >> no. if we end up with a law that takes 13 years people have to do the same thing we recommended to learn english and pay a fine you cannot access federal government transfer payments and it takes 13 years i think that satisfies the concerns with the right balance respect for the rule and embracing the heritage.

>> you argue for self deportation? >> no. the issue at hand with is my guess a majority of people will hopefully get legalized status will not even apply if it was the amnesty bill was an example of that the majority did not apply for citizenship banded totally misreads the aspirations for people to come out of the shadows they don't necessarily want to be citizens but work hard to pay for the needs of their families and many want to go back to their families. that is a crazy idea but people don't please leave the country because they hate to them but because they have no other option. the proposal that we had and that we made was geared to reach a consensus at a time

and released in september i had no idea or thought we would be as far long as we are but adults find either one of those incompatible they solve it either way and that is what we need to do. >> governor barbour letter thoughts on the bill right now moving through the senate? >> it is a good start. the fact it is bipartisan and they worked hard on it. i don't think it is what will ultimately passed by thinks the senate is likely to amend and the house will pass a bill in the be quite different from the senate bill and whether they pass several small bills whether they decide to pass one big bill which i think is unlikely in the house, then we go to

conference with two bills with substantial differences and that will have to be worked out. that is the way the process works. i am hopeful in this congress we will get a bill with the immigration reform to put into effect immediately after passage. for me, and no immigration reform is the worst outcome. if you are concerned about securing the border, keeping what we have got now to do nothing we will have another 10 million illegal coming in the country over 10 years immigration reform is critical element needed for border security, to finally in force visa expiration dates 34% of the people in this country illegally entered legally. they came here on a t2 is

just that they stayed and noted ministration to my knowledge in history has ever tried to do anything about that. has ever tried to go find them. if you what to do something about that and you want a secure border with the economic growth are country is capable of to maintain our leadership then immigration reform is essential and not having it would lead to more bad results on every front. >> what about the cornyn amendment? harry reid calls it a poison pill the details, just a couple of measures require 100 percent monitoring capability and 90 percent apprehension rate not for full citizenship but just legal status. >> i will not comment on the

sauce is. it is a work in process and the only comment is that it is encouraging that sausages is being made rather than and talked about. our democracy does not work when you're on the sidelines as the people i engaged in good faith to find consensus. i would say that the key element of border security obviously controlling the border better is a limit that a legal system of immigration is a key element of border security. the theory actually think the fact is if you make legal immigration easier with less cost, pain, risk van illegal immigration you not have as much illegal immigration and our legal immigration system is broken. one of the elements that is controversial in the recommendation embraced in the senate and likely in the house bill is to redefine

merrill family petitioning back to what every other country in the world has. along the lines of a spouse and minor children and the senate bill has that placidyl parents. but whatever the case, if you narrow it down to open the door for economic guest worker program and expand the h1-b t2 and expand the additional ones that are driven from the high end and the low end of the income scale. well border security has to be first and foremost, simultaneous there has to be a system if you are a filipino not petition to that is 165 years. unless we have of massive change where life expectancy has changed it is not a line

so creating the system of openness for people to have a chance to come legally is critical. >> without tripping the me make. [laughter] his point* we need more of the people who come in legally because of marriage, work, what they can do for our economy. that is where they need is a and he is very right on that but it is fair to understand that there are people who are concerned will be be serious about border security? alan simpson will tell you what was the principal they said the first thing you do is secure the border but we never did. so i can understand i will not try to get into anybody else's amendment but it is

clearly understandable that this time the american people want to have some certainty that we will have border security and do better at enforcing the visa because the last time they took the government at its word and i don't think they are prepared to do that again. fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on me. >> this measure is moving to p bysenate right now and the house but even if immigration reform makes it through the senate to betty says it will be an uphill battle but this is an interesting analysis that while the electorate is growing increasingly diverse but the average republican district is getting wider so how'd you persuade those lawmakers to vote for immigration reform when so

many constituents don't want to? where 60 percent of legalization opponents said they would not support a candidate who voted in favor of a path how to sell that? >> we have a lot of polls. it is like a streetcars if you miss one there ob another one in 10 minutes and a different direction but to taken at face value value, those districts are largely rural and they have a huge dependency on agriculture agriculture in america has a huge dependency now i was talking about california and mississippi is a substantial agriculture state and believe better not never won

a commodity is not caught in the chicken. reprocess 2.5 billion dollars per year worth of poultry, boilers go to any chicken processing plant if you confine someone on the floor that speaks english and will give you $100. they are all here for work and willing to do nasty and dirty work every day they come home covered in blood and guts and veins and feet and feathers. >> we got it. [laughter] >> i will tell you how bad it is. [laughter] it is in this there are jobs americans won't take but in mississippi we have a very advanced corrections program are recidivism is half of the nation's 27% because inmates to a certain

security level, we let them work and they can go work in the area, get paid, after the price of incarceration they get a savings account and in one of our institutions and chicken country the inmates will not stage today's you rather be in the penitentiary than working in the chicken plan and that is the literal truth. those congressmen have huge constituencies who are dependent on this labor. a big part of their economy they will have those constituents say congressman, please vote for immigration reform so we don't have to have people here illegally so we can get labeled -- labor to build the economy and support the family is of your district. there will be a lot of that and other examples.

>> most of the polling i see shows there is broad support for the reforms being discussed right now in congress. the implication of the question is every decision is made purely for political self-interest and you survived by a being cognizant you cannot go way out of the mainstream of your district is not as out of whack with we doing right now and i have not seen the of paul you brought up that i was on the other streetcar and i think there is a broader question change the conversation from illegal immigration and move it to how do you have an economic strategy in the whole dynamic of the conversation changes some might rise to members of congress i gave a

crisis morning at 8:00 it was that, change the conversation to how do we restore our greatness as a nation to sustain economic growth. of we can do this with an older who population that is less productive if where our fertility rates unless you johnny every one of our kids or grandkids will have four or five kids and promised me that, then there is no way we can have based on the simple math of labor output times probe note -- productivity equal economic activity that we can go for a sustained period of time we have to change our policy it is broken that is a winning message in conservative america for sure. >> conservatives shot down your brothers on average. >> no. >> what is different now? >> it wasn't just republicans. that is the wrong premise.

lot of people ran for cover on both sides it was a must show that all of a sudden it stopped and people got scared and went from 61 negative 62 people down at 39 or 40 at the end. >> what is different now? >> people do see it as an issue of great opportunity and both parties realize we have to do something for political purposes and the policies need to be implemented and also that people are supportive of the initiatives proposed in congress right now. i am not sure in 2006 but growth is as popular as it

was two days. >> one minor observation of the american people are not prepared to accept the low level of economic growth that we have had in recent years in the last two on negative three years it has grown at 2% after the last recession in the '80s and even deeper recession in terms of unemployment the economy was four and a half and 7.four and four point* one americans are not willing to accept 2% growth as a normal and this is part of the equation for getting us back to the growth that we're used to that we can have and that our kids and grandkids and deserve. >> you concerned about the heritage foundation report that said immigration reform will cost u.s. 6.$3 trillion

over the next 60 years? yes criticized not taking into account the benefits that would come. how do you quantify that going forward? it is already mentioning -- being mentioned on the floor. >> everybody knows it is a political document and it was designed that way. there is a reason we don't expect the government to make predictions about spending and taxes for more than 10 years. the idea we will predict 50 years into the future to precision within a few tens of millions of dollars is silly. we cannot do that and people know that but it is also so obviously political document that is now starting to be compared to other people's studies that have different results for another year to its foundation has been an ally of mine from when i was

chairman of the party and governor of mississippi. my wife does not agree with me on everything so it is not a big deal to me but the fact of the matter is it is a political document not a serious piece of work. you don't fire people who just do the top steady then the next week it'll fire the guy who did it that everything is peachy keen. >> yes you do. [laughter] >> before we get to audience questions to the republican national committee came out with a strong report saying " we must embrace immigration reform if we do not the appeal will continue to shrink to the core

constituencies of the meeting it will go the way of the dinosaur. what happens to the republican party and would be presidential candidates if it does it get through congress and if republicans are seen as being responsible? what happens to the party? >> i think the system will be blamed not one party or the other is both parties are in gauged so i am pleased rather than say no for a principal reason but what might be proposed by a democrats the people of good faith quietly have gone about their business to forge a consensus with the way of the judiciary committee now on the floor of the senate the house will have their own version and it validates that we were starting to worry we would

have to republish of the civics books because the process ignored how it was supposed to work so i don't think the political aspects are because of the engagement, i think we're in pretty good shape. it would be hard to imagine if republicans in the house passed a bill and you cannot afford a consensus in the conference that someone could be blamed politically i am sure their efforts to try making a good-faith effort with sincerity to believe in the other side could have a conversation is helpful in that regard. >> the biggest issue that you bring up is that it is the republicans' fault if it fails because of border security, because the democrats say it is the

poison pill is that the word you used? >> harry reid. >> dod is said it is the republicans' fault but the fact of the matter is it does better than everybody else and to predetermined it is the republicans' fault? that is something we have to work on to see what happens hoping we will get a bill to pass both houses but if we don't republicans have to make sure that if they try to support a bill they could not get past because the president wouldn't sign it then there isn't just the predisposition may be it is the republicans' fault.